Latest news with #FirstAmendmentRights
Indian Express
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Trump administration vs Harvard: What to know about the legal battles
A Boston district judge on Monday (June 23) blocked a proclamation signed by US President Donald Trump on June 4, barring the entry of foreign nationals to Harvard University. The injunction came just hours before a prior temporary restraining order was due to expire, which protected visa holders from being denied entry. Judge Allison D Burroughs held that Trump had misused a federal law designed to safeguard national security, and agreed with Harvard's lawyers who said that such presidential power was meant to be used against foreign enemies, not international students. Harvard is currently suing the Trump administration on two matters – the university's ability to enrol international students, and to restore draconian federal funding cuts. Monday's ruling concerns the former and marks the second such court decision within a week on the subject. Judge Burroughs, who is presiding over both cases, issued a similar decision on June 20. The Trump administration has maintained that it has targeted Harvard for failing to keep Jewish students safe and allowing antisemitism to flourish. As the lawsuits have progressed, the administration has claimed that the university used racial preferences in violation of a Supreme Court ruling. Here is what to know about the Trump administration's war against the university, and how the battle has played out legally. Following countrywide university protests against Israel's war in Gaza, the Trump administration on February 3 announced the formation of a Task Force to investigate purported antisemitic incidents in ten universities. The Justice Department described the initiative as an attempt to 'root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses.' In March, the Task Force said it was examining about $256 million in federal contracts for Harvard, and a separate $8.7 billion in what it called 'multi-year commitments.' It alleged that the university had failed to combat antisemitic harassment. This was followed by two letters to the university, on April 3 and April 11, seeking 'several broad, non-exhaustive areas of reform' that the government viewed as necessary for Harvard to remain 'a responsible recipient of federal taxpayer dollars.' The proposed reforms included discontinuing all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) based programs, reporting disciplinary actions for 'antisemitic rule violations since October 7, 2023,' and reporting students deemed 'hostile to American values'. On April 14, Harvard's president, Alan Garber, issued a sternly worded reply refusing to comply with these conditions. He said that the 'reforms' violated the university's First Amendment Rights, including the invasion of university freedoms. He also objected to the threat of federal funding being incumbent on complying with the government's terms. 'The government's terms also circumvent Harvard's statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law,' he wrote. On April 16, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice to the university announcing that it had frozen $2.2 million in multiyear grants, as well as a $60 million contract. The DHS notice sought information on various foreign national visa holders who have been a part of 'illegal and violent' activities within the campus. 'Since Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Harvard's foreign visa-holding rioters and faculty have spewed antisemitic hate, targeting Jewish students. With a $53.2 billion endowment, Harvard can fund its own chaos—DHS won't,' the DHS said. The university was given 15 days to respond to the notice, failing which its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification would be revoked. Issued by the DHS, the certification allows colleges and universities in the US to enrol international students on F-1, M-1 and J-1 student visas. An F-1 visa authorises international students to attend an academic institution such as a high school or college, while an M-1 visa is needed for students in vocational or technical training programs at recognised schools. Similarly, a J-1 visa is needed for exchange program students. Without this certification, institutions cannot issue Form I-20, which serves as proof of enrollment and is necessary for visitors to maintain student status. The university sent a detailed list to the DHS on April 30 with the number and information of enrolled foreign students. The DHS subsequently concluded that Harvard failed to inform the students involved in the protest activities, and sought information about their disciplinary records, as well as their involvement in 'known illegal and violent activities'. In its reply on May 14, Harvard identified three F-1 visa students who received disciplinary action that changed their academic status, as well as the details of their conduct. Despite these submissions and Harvard's expressed willingness to cooperate, US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, on May 22, ordered the DHS to revoke Harvard's SEVP certification. In a letter to the university, Noem wrote that current students would need to transfer or risk losing their legal status. The decision would affect 5,000 international students, as well as 2,000 recent graduates on temporary visas, allowing them to remain in the US after graduation to work, according to a report in The New York Times. Harvard sued the administration, arguing that the President had exceeded his authority under Title 8, Section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This clause empowers him to suspend or restrict the entry of noncitizens if such entry is considered 'detrimental' to the interests of the country. The university also argued that the Trump administration had violated its First Amendment rights, including academic autonomy and freedom of speech, as well as its Fifth Amendment Rights, namely the Right of Equal Protection, as no other university was treated in the same manner as Harvard. The government refuted these claims, citing national security. Judge Burroughs, who heard the case, issued a temporary restraining order against the federal action. She ruled that the move would cause 'immediate and irreparable injury.' President Trump attempted to bypass this ruling by issuing a decree on June 4, which said that any foreign national who enrolled at the university would be banned from entering the US. Judge Burroughs issued another temporary restraining order against the move and extended the previous order against Noem's decree. On June 20, Judge Burroughs issued a three-page preliminary injunction forbidding the government from 'implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving any force or effect' to remove Harvard from the international student program. The ruling thus allows the university to continue participating in the Student and Visitor Exchange Program. On Monday, Judge Burroughs issued a ruling against Trump's June 4 proclamation. 'Here, the government's misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration's own views, threaten these rights. To make matters worse, the government attempts to accomplish this, at least in part, on the backs of international students, with little thought to the consequences to them or, ultimately, to our own citizens,' she wrote. Harvard sued the administration on April 21 against the funds freeze, saying the administration was using 'leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard'. The New York Times reported Harvard received seven stop-work orders for research awards between April 14 and May 6, after which 950 such orders totalling $2.4 billion were passed. The government officially began terminating federal funding to Harvard on May 5, which started a 120-day clock before the impact would become permanent, according to the university. On June 2, the university filed a motion requesting summary judgment by early September, arguing that time was critical. 'Once that closeout occurs, Harvard anticipates the government will take the position that no restoration of funds is possible,' the university wrote. Oral arguments by both parties are scheduled on July 21.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Man makes ‘online joke' about Riverview mayor – Now, he's fighting a court order
RIVERVIEW, Mo. – A dispute over an 'online joke' has escalated into a free speech controversy involving an Illinois man and the mayor of Riverview, Missouri. The City of Riverview recently issued a subpoena over the joke, and now the man behind it is fighting back. On Tuesday, the Institute for Justice, a national civil liberties law firm, sent a letter to Riverview city officials, calling on them to retract a subpoena issued against James Carroll. Carroll, a current resident of Collinsville, Illinois, formerly lived near Riverview in north St. Louis County and continues to follow updates on the community. 'Devil in the Ozarks' escapes north Arkansas prison In April, according to the Institute for Justice, Carroll posted a joke on neighborhood-based website Nextdoor that poked fun at Mayor Michael Cornell in response to recent news articles. While the law firm did not disclose the nature or exact content of the joke, it says a subpoena arrived just days later. The subpoena orders Carroll to appear at a Riverview meeting and testify on several allegations, including allegations that he cyberbullied Riverview residents, threatened a city official, and defamed someone's character. The Institute for Justice claims this move violates Carroll's First Amendment Rights, contending that joking about officials is protected by free speech and that the subpoena amounts to unconstitutional retaliation. 'The First Amendment is a bulwark against thin-skinned government officials abusing their authority to punish their critics,' said Institute for Justice attorney Ben Field via a news release. 'You can understand why an elected official would be tempted to retaliate against somebody making a joke at their expense, which is why the Constitution stands in their way.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Carroll formally filed a lawsuit on April 17, 2025, to challenge the city's subpoena. A hearing to decide the validity of the subpoena is scheduled for Wednesday. The City of Riverview is located in the northeast corner of St. Louis County near the Mississippi River with a population of around 2,300 people. Cornell has served as the City's mayor since 2023. FOX 2 has reached out to the City of Riverview for comment, but our request for comment has not been returned as of this story's publication. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
City council to discuss proposed juvenile curfew for Charleston's central business district
CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – Charleston city council will discuss a proposed ordinance that would establish a juvenile curfew within the central business district. The curfew was initially discussed during a May 20 public safety committee meeting, and now members of city council are set to discuss and vote on a first reading of the ordinance during a meeting Tuesday inside City Hall. The push for a juvenile curfew comes amid a joint effort between the city and the Charleston Police Department to curb underage crime. The curfew would apply to those 17 and under. Officials said there have been large groups of teens involved in or causing crimes over the past few months, specifically in the city's central business district. 'There are clips all over the internet about it. It's pretty obvious, these are not folks going to and from work or going from one house to another. These are gangs of kids that are congregating in given locations – parking lots, hanging out on street corners, and it's not one or two of them. It's 20, 30, 40 teenagers,' said Mayor William Cogswell in a May 20 interview with News 2. The curfew would be in effect from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m. Thursdays through Sundays. It would be enforced every day during the summer. There are exceptions for those who are working, have an emergency, a sponsored event, or are using their First Amendment Rights. 'Summer is really when you see these things spike,' Mayor Cogswell previously said. 'They've also had some curfews put in place, apparently, outside of the area, not inside the City of Charleston, that has resulted in more and more of these teens coming to King Street in particular. So, it's something that we want to try to be proactive on and address.' The meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m. inside Charleston City Hall. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Impeachment Proposal Rejected by Top Democrat Leader
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A leading Democrat has rejected his colleagues' efforts to impeach Republican President Donald Trump. "Impeachment is, at times, a tool that can be used. This president is no stranger to that; he's been impeached twice," Representative Pete Aguilar, the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday. "But we don't have any confidence that House and Senate Republicans would do their jobs, and so this is not an exercise that we're willing to undertake." Newsweek has contacted Aguilar's office for further comment via email. File photo: Pete Aguilar (D-CA) speaks during a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing in the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C. File photo: Pete Aguilar (D-CA) speaks during a Democratic Steering and Policy Committee hearing in the U.S. Capitol on April 10, 2025 in Washington, It Matters Trump was impeached twice during his first term as president, but acquitted by the Senate in both cases. But Democrats appear divided over how to combat Trump in his second term. Representative Shri Thanedar, a Michigan Democrat, introduced seven articles of impeachment against Trump on Monday. And Representative Al Green of Texas has said he is planning articles of impeachment as well. However, few Democrats have voiced support for impeaching Trump since measures are unlikely to go anywhere with Republicans in control of both the House and Senate. What To Know Thanedar filed seven articles of impeachment against Trump on Monday. They accuse the president of obstruction of justice, abuse of executive power, usurpation of appropriations power, abuse of trade powers and international aggression, violation of First Amendment Rights, creation of an unlawful office, bribery and corruption, and tyrannical overreach. Three House Democrats—Representatives Robin Kelly of Illinois, Kweisi Mfume of Maryland and Jerry Nadler of New York—asked to be removed as cosponsors of the impeachment resolution on Tuesday. Kelly and Mfume did so after learning the effort had not been reviewed by party leadership, The Hill reported. Only Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois remained a cosponsor as of Wednesday afternoon. Thanedar told Newsweek on Wednesday that he "cannot speak for the actions of other members." But he said he was pursuing impeachment "because Trump has blatantly violated the constitution." Meanwhile, Thanedar this week gained a second primary challenger. Donavan McKinney, a 32-year-old state representative, launched a Democratic campaign in Michigan's 13th Congressional District on Monday. McKinney and former state Senator Adam Hollier are aiming to unseat second-term Thanedar in next year's primary. What People Are Saying Trump responded to the impeachment articles during a rally on Tuesday, saying: "Today they did it again. Some guy that I've never heard of … is he a congressman? This guy, he said …'Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to start the impeachment of Donald Trump.' What the hell did I do? Here we go again." Thanedar said in a statement on Monday: "Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as President and represents a clear and present danger to our nation's constitution and our democracy. His unlawful actions have subverted the justice system, violated the separation of powers, and placed personal power and self-interest above public service. We cannot wait for more damage to be done. Congress must act." Asked if he was discouraging Democrats from introducing articles of impeachment, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters on Monday: "I haven't evaluated the articles that were introduced. I haven't even had an opportunity to talk with [Thanedar] about it." What Happens Next Thanedar's effort to impeach Trump is unlikely to go anywhere while Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate. Democratic leaders have not said whether they would move to impeach Trump if they win back the House and Senate in next year's midterm elections.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Labor Department from enforcing key part of Trump's anti-DEI executive orders
CHICAGO (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the U.S. Department of Labor from requiring contractors and grant recipients to certify they do not operate any diversity, equity and inclusion programs that run afoul of anti-discrimination laws until further order from the court. Judge Matthew Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued the ruling in response to a lawsuit filed by Chicago Women in Trades, a nonprofit dedicated to training and retaining women in skilled construction trades that receives several grants from the Department of Labor. The certification provision is a key part of President Donald Trump's executive orders aimed at curbing DEI programs because contractors and grant recipients could be subjected to crippling financial penalties under the False Claims Act if they are found in violation of it. The lawsuit filed by Chicago Women in Trades argued that Trump's executive orders infringe on First Amendment Rights and are so broad and vague in their definition of what might constitute illegal DEI as to make compliance impossible. Kennelly had already issued a temporary restraining order against the Labor Department last month that was shorter in duration. His order is limited in scope because he declined to extend the injunction to other federal agencies beyond DOL. However, he ruled that Chicago Women in Trades was ultimately likely to succeed in its lawsuit against key parts of the executive orders, writing that it is 'anything but obvious' what constitutes 'illegal DEI programs' in the government's view. The lawsuit is one of several challenging Trump's executive orders targeting DEI programs in both the private and public sectors. A federal appeals court last month lifted a Baltimore judge's block on the anti-DEI orders in a similar case. Trump signed two DEI-related executive orders in January, one of which directs federal agencies to eliminate their own DEI activities and end any 'equity-related' grants or contracts. The other takes broader aim by imposing the certification provision on all companies and institutions with government contracts or grant dollars. It also directs federal agencies to identify private companies, non-profits or foundations for potential investigation into DEI practices. In response to Tuesday's ruling, Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said that the DOJ "has vigorously defended President Trump's executive actions, including the order to end radical and wasteful government DEI programs, and will continue to do so.' Chicago Women in Trades and lawyers for the organization had no immediate comment. Kennelly on Tuesday also prohibited the Labor Department from canceling or freezing a congressionally-appropriated grant to Chicago Women In Trades under the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations initiative, which aims to expand pathways for women seeking to enter skilled trades. Kennelly said taking away that grant would violate separation of power provisions under the Constitution. However, Kennelly's injunction is narrower in scope than his earlier decision to prohibit the Labor Department from canceling all grants to Chicago Women in Trades. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
